Just because new reserves are being found doesn't mean that they're of the size and quality of previous discoveries.  Even if they were, depletion of older well fields and the huge amount of oil we currently use means that it's harder and harder to get ahead.  Of course the elephant in the room is that even as new shale oil and other deposits are being tapped, they require so much energy to produce that the net amount of usable oil afterwards is paltry compared to what could be had from sweet light crude.  That's why even if supplies increased, prices are unlikely to ever go down, because it just takes so much more energy, chemicals, and refining to crack the sludge being pumped out of the ground now. 

Just because oil exists doesn't mean it's profitable to extract and refine at $108 a a barrel. There would be an unbelievable amount of oil available at $400 a barrel. But then there's little demand for it at that price level so nobody would go in and get it.

 

Oil is not something that we can just go in and get with guns like we tried to in the Middle East. Companies that extract and refine it are NOT CHARITIES. They must turn a profit or they won't bother.

All true, and notwithstanding all of those dynamics, production continues to increase, not just the rate of reserve discoveries or accountings (i.e., whether reserves are described as economically recoverable or not).

 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm

 

The decline in 2008, at least for the moment, certainly looks like an aberration now rather than the start of a long-term downtrend that it was portrayed as at the time by folks like those at TOD.  Maybe the long-predicted downtrend will arrive at some point, but we're well past the point when the original predictions posited that we'd see it, and we're still on an uptrend.  And while oil has gone from below $90 in May to $106 now, it often nudges upward in the summer and we're still well short of where many people ten years ago were predicting we'd see oil prices today.  Prices went over $140 a barren in 2008, but we've been seasonally fluctuating in the $80-$110 band now since mid-2009.

 

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/crude-oil.aspx?timeframe=6y

 

So at the moment, we're seeing a sustained mild increase in supply, alongside prices that have been annually volatile but have not been on a sustained uptrend for about four years now.  Of course, there's no telling when it will break out to the upside, and that's certainly more likely than breaking out to the downside.  There certainly are supply risks.  And even without ordinary supply risks, another war in the Middle East could certainly make things crazy.  But nevertheless, no TOD folks thought we'd be in this position today.

 

  But nevertheless, no TOD folks thought we'd be in this position today.

 

Not true: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/10198

Whither Shale Oil?: Interview with David Hughes

 

Full interview:  http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-08-13/whither-shale-oil-interview-with-david-hughes

 

excerpt:

 

"My estimate last year showed a peak in the Bakken in 2017 at nearly one million b/d, if you drilled 2,000 wells per year. But that was based on the EIA’s 2012 estimate of just under 12,000 well locations. Given the new EIA estimates of well locations I think the Bakken could reach the 2020 time range before declining. The Bakken is currently producing about 725,000 barrels per day from a little over 6000 wells (Figure 3). Right now the Bakken needs about 1440 wells per year just to offset field production decline (Figure 4). When the Bakken is going to peak depends on the number of well locations that are left and how fast you drill the wells.

 

As you grow production, the number of wells you need simply to offset decline keeps on increasing.

 

In every shale play I’ve looked at there are always sweet spots. Those inevitably get drilled first. So as the sweet spots are drilled off, drilling has to move into lower quality parts of the reservoir. Therefore you need an ever-escalating number of wells drilled just to offset field decline. So if the Bakken were to hit a million barrels/day of production, which it probably will, it will then likely need about 2000 wells drilled per year just to offset decline.

 

So play that out: there are 20,000 locations remaining—optimistically. So we’re basically looking at 10 years or less for the Bakken—certainly not the rosy forecast, in terms of longevity, that comes out of places like CitiGroup."

"@cnni: Houston, we have a solution: Turning 'car city' into green city http://t.co/V4R97Cbajf @houstontxdotgov @anniseparker"

The Peak Oil Crisis:  The Middle East in Context

 

by Tom Whipple  (retired CIA intelligence analyst)

 

Key line from the article:  Anyone who thinks that a short-lived burst of shale oil fracking in North Dakota and Texas is enough to counter the tides of history flowing across the Middle East simply does not understand the situation.

 

A few key paragraphs:

 

"Few of the Middle East’s manifold problems are so dramatic that they warrant much media attention, but taken together they are slowly taking a toll on the world’s oil supply. Last week the US’s Energy Information Administration reported that unplanned production and export outages, mostly in the Middle East, are now up to 2.8 million b/d and this was before the recent Libyan crisis took another 500,000 b/d off the market. Despite all the hype about America’s shale oil production, it still amounts to well less than half the unplanned drop in Middle Eastern production.

 

"The International Energy Agency reported that production shortfalls this summer resulted in the world consuming about 2.2 million b/d more than it produced with the remainder coming from inventories. These are now thought to be down about 95 million barrels from recent levels.

 

"World oil prices are now about $115 a barrel. Some of this is due to concerns about what will happen if we start bombing Syria, but the rest is due to slowly tightening supply/demand situation around the world. The Chinese are still growing their demand at prodigious rates and the world is still adding about 70 million new “oil consumers” to its population each year. Anyone who thinks that a short-lived burst of shale oil fracking in North Dakota and Texas is enough to counter the tides of history flowing across the Middle East understand the situation."

 

Full Article at: 

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-09-05/the-peak-oil-crisis-middle-east-context

Production continues to increase, not just the rate of reserve discoveries or accountings

 

How much of that production actually makes it to the larger market, instead of, say, being allocated to drilling the next well? And, what would the graph look like if it were plotted by BTU, and not by barrel, accounting for the fact that the good stuff was taken first?

 

It appears that light sweet crude, which is the best petroleum, peaked around 2008. Now we are producing more heavy sour, low grade petroleum.

 

Airline travel is down, and so are miles driven in this country, despite an increase in production over the last few years. Something tells me that petroleum has effectively peaked, when the end product, gasoline or diesel fuel in the tank, is measured.

Amazingly, the US is exporting some of that increase while we import other fuels. The whole net exports issue is what's causing Saudi Arabia and the UAE to invest their oil riches in a post-oil economy, including mass transit and high speed rail. What did the the US do with its oil riches to prepare for the post-oil economy?

Lots of compelling charts and such here.  It's a bit of a long read, but worth it

 

SNAKE OIL: Chapter 3 - A Treadmill to Hell

by Richard Heinberg, originally published by Resilience.org  | Oct 9, 2013

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-10-09/snake-oil-chapter-3-a-treadmill-to-hell

 

The current fracking frenzy in the oil and gas fields of Texas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado, and Pennsylvania shows all the signs of being a boom in the classic sense. How do we know it’s not different this time, that it won’t end in a colossal bust? And if it is yet another instance of the same old story, how soon will the bust come?

 

These are questions best answered by data—by realistic resource estimates, per-well production and decline rates, and reliable calculations of the number of possible drilling sites. Compiling these kinds of data is hard work and often requires access to expensive proprietary information. And the rewards are few: investors want good news...

 

...When discussing US shale gas production, it is always necessary to begin by acknowledging the industry’s accomplishments—as we have already done on more than one occasion in this book. Natural gas production in the United States is now higher than at any point in history, and shale gas currently makes up 40% of America’s total natural gas production. Considering how quickly the new technology has been deployed, this is an impressive achievement.

 

Nevertheless, it turns out that high productivity shale gas plays are few and far between: just six plays account for 88% of total production. And, as noted at the end of Chapter 2, each play is in effect its own “resource pyramid,” characterized by a few small “sweet spots” surrounded by larger areas capable of only marginal productivity. Drillers invariably concentrate their efforts on the zones of highest productivity first. So, as time goes on and as drillers must stray ever further from sweet spots, the initial productivity of each new well drilled in the play tends to be lower than that of previous wells. The number of available drilling sites is always limited, and, once the play is saturated with wells, per-well decline rates will determine the play’s longevity.

 

Hughes notes that individual shale gas well decline rates range from 80–95% after 36 months, in the top five US plays. The industry’s claim that America has 100 years of gas is based on the assumption that individual wells will continue to produce for 40 years, but given such steep decline rates, the data do not support this assumption...

 

...There were 341,678 operating gas wells in the United States in 2000, prior to the fracking revolution, representing more than a century of drilling efforts. In 2011, that number had swollen to 514,637.6 Here again is evidence that descent to lower levels of the “resource pyramid” ensures diminishing returns from increasing effort: since 1990 the average productivity per well has declined by 38%.

 

The EIA reports these trends but still believes shale gas production rates can continue to grow. What would it take to make that happen? Only a drilling pace that’s utterly unprecedented can possibly suffice. In the 2005–2008 period, the industry roughly tripled the number of natural gas wells being drilled annually, as compared to 1990s’ rates. To produce the estimated US reserves of shale gas, the EIA calculates that 410,722 shale gas wells will have to be drilled.7 It takes a moment to mentally process the implications of drilling on that scale...

 

Too much in this chapter to summarize here.  It's a must read:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-10-09/snake-oil-chapter-3-a-treadmill-to-hell

"@urbandata: If the world's population lived like Americans, we would need 4 more planets: Great #datavis by nation/city http://t.co/43AvIrCvWT #urbanism"

If the world's population produced like Americans, we'd probably be mining the deep sea floor, the deep crust, and maybe even asteroids for resources by now, and we'd all be living better than Americans actually do in 2013.

If the world's population produced like Americans, we'd probably be mining the deep sea floor, the deep crust, and maybe even asteroids for resources by now, and we'd all be living better than Americans actually do in 2013.

 

Well, good for the parasitic humans! And our planet would soon look like this......

 

Production doesn't have to come with a bunch of pointless driving and sprawl.

If the world's population produced like Americans, we'd probably be mining the deep sea floor, the deep crust, and maybe even asteroids for resources by now, and we'd all be living better than Americans actually do in 2013.

 

Well, good for the parasitic humans! And our planet would soon look like this......

 

How many times does Malthusian economics need to be discredited?

 

Production doesn't have to come with a bunch of pointless driving and sprawl.

 

Agreed.  But opposition to sprawl doesn't have to mean opposition to production and use of natural resources.  One doesn't have to be a conservationist to oppose sprawl; one just has to have a halfway-decent imagination for what else we could be doing with all the resources wasted in that particularly inefficient use of land, fuel, and other resources.  And those who favor imposing a vow of poverty on the country are not going to be the ones that anyone else trusts to change it.

If the world's population produced like Americans, we'd probably be mining the deep sea floor, the deep crust, and maybe even asteroids for resources by now, and we'd all be living better than Americans actually do in 2013.

 

Well, good for the parasitic humans! And our planet would soon look like this......

 

How many times does Malthusian economics need to be discredited?

 

 

What you call Malthusian I call the rule of finite natural systems.

 

Remember what Bill Murray said in Groundhog Day to the hungry bum who ate up all the soup? "It gets hard at the bottom."

 

How many times does Malthusian economics need to be discredited?

 

 

Have you actually read Malthus? He didn't claim that the world was going to end. He showed that human population cannot increase geometrically forever as long as the food supply doesn't grow to match. The earth has enormous, but finite resources.

 

 

If the world's population produced like Americans, we'd probably be mining the deep sea floor, the deep crust, and maybe even asteroids for resources by now, and we'd all be living better than Americans actually do in 2013.

 

Exactly.  And/or we'd have fusion power, and probably fusion recycling/material generation by now. 

 

What has come to be known as Malthusian economics has been taken up by Paul Ehrlich and his ilk.  It's hard to think of any one individual who has been more consistently wrong over the last fifty years.

 

The population has not grown geometrically and food supplies have not grown linearly.  Even a nation like India is now feeding itself.

 

Exactly.  And/or we'd have fusion power, and probably fusion recycling/material generation by now.

 

And a flying car in every garage.

 

 

The population has not grown geometrically and food supplies have not grown linearly.  Even a nation like India is now feeding itself.

 

Since 1900, when world population was 1 billion, it most certainly has grown geometrically.

 

And where do you get that India can feed itself? Do you just invent statistics in the hopes of continuing an argument?

 

 

Exactly.  And/or we'd have fusion power, and probably fusion recycling/material generation by now.

 

And a flying car in every garage.

 

 

The population has not grown geometrically and food supplies have not grown linearly.  Even a nation like India is now feeding itself.

 

Since 1900, when world population was 1 billion, it most certainly has grown geometrically.

 

And where do you get that India can feed itself? Do you just invent statistics in the hopes of continuing an argument?

 

 

http://www.hindu.com/2010/11/05/stories/2010110557800200.htm

 

India has achieved self-sufficiency in food production, says VC

 

Staff Reporter

COIMBATORE: India has achieved self-sufficiency in food production, said P. Murugesa Boopathi, Vice-Chancellor, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University.

 

The total production of 234 million tonnes had been possible because of improved technology in the form of high-yielding varieties, hybrids, farm machinery and management technologies.

 

In keeping with the same, Bt. technology was introduced in cotton, which increased production from 15 million bales to 32.5 million bales.

 

Mr. Boopathi was speaking at the inauguration of the seminar-cum-field visit on ‘Bollgard II Roundup Ready Flex Cotton Technology', which was held at the university recently.

 

 

 

As for growth....

 

My original post on this subject....

 

"@urbandata: If the world's population lived like Americans, we would need 4 more planets: Great #datavis by nation/city http://t.co/43AvIrCvWT #urbanism"

 

Yep, I concur India can feed itself by living as they do now. But as India's GDP and their standard of living continues to improve (to American levels?), India doesn't believe it will be able to feed itself. I'm pretty sure you would agree that India does not live like Americans. The debate point is: "does this planet have the capacity to permit that?" Earth is a giant fuel tank. And fuel tanks run empty when we take more them than is replenished.

My original post on this subject....

 

"@urbandata: If the world's population lived like Americans, we would need 4 more planets: Great #datavis by nation/city http://t.co/43AvIrCvWT #urbanism"

 

Yep, I concur India can feed itself by living as they do now. But as India's GDP and their standard of living continues to improve (to American levels?), India doesn't believe it will be able to feed itself. I'm pretty sure you would agree that India does not live like Americans. The debate point is: "does this planet have the capacity to permit that?" Earth is a giant fuel tank. And fuel tanks run empty when we take more them than is replenished.

 

Who said we are limited to the planet?  Indeed, Gramarye began to refute that.

 

Even on this planet, technology and innovation changes available resources.  Our 19th century consumption of whale oil was also unsustainable.

We are limited to the planet by the price of resource extraction. And even then there are resources on this planet we may never tap because no one could afford to consume it. So find me the next "rock oil" to replace whale oil and then I'll agree the planet should continue moving full speed ahead. Until then, when I'm driving toward an abyss where no bridge yet exists, my natural response is to hit the brakes and slow the joy ride. Call me crazy.....

We are limited to the planet by the price of resource extraction. And even then there are resources on this planet we may never tap because no one could afford to consume it. So find me the next "rock oil" to replace whale oil and then I'll agree the planet should continue moving full speed ahead. Until then, when I'm driving toward an abyss where no bridge yet exists, my natural response is to hit the brakes and slow the joy ride. Call me crazy.....

 

Same question as Malthusian economics: How many times does this proposition need to be proven wrong to be buried permanently?

 

What we can "afford" to consume is a moving target.  Unconventional oil reserves, even with admittedly higher depletion rates and lower EROEI, still become economically viable at some price.  If society has used the more easily-accessible resources wisely (i.e., used them in ways that increased societal wealth), then we can afford to then continue to move on to the less-accessible resources.  The only theoretical endpoint of that principle is the total volume of matter and energy in the universe.

 

In addition, resource efficiency technologies, which continue to improve (whether energy or other resources), increase the value of extracting those resources because you get more value or work out of each unit of a resource extracted.  This applies to oil, but also to other resources as well.  The fact that we have so many advanced technological uses for gold now, for example, makes it value far higher than if the only use of it was jewelry (and toilet seats in the palaces of tinpot dictators).

 

Yes, energy will continue to get more expensive.  But the question is whether it will get more expensive relative to the rate of economic growth (and, of course, from the perspective of ordinary consumers, wage growth).  And on that score, the environmental movement is replete with people who want exactly that to happen, in order to restrict consumption.  By contrast, the more capitalist faction may admit that the economics of our natural environment may mean that energy will get more expensive and that we probably won't be able to both increase supply and lower the price like capitalism can in other fields of human endeavor, but at least we acknowledge that our standards of living would be better if we could.

"Unconventional oil reserves, even with admittedly higher depletion rates and lower EROEI, still become economically viable at some price.  If society has used the more easily-accessible resources wisely (i.e., used them in ways that increased societal wealth), then we can afford to then continue to move on to the less-accessible resources."

 

Why do you assume that's the case?  As resources become more scarce it does become more economically viable to tap less conventional sources of them, that's true.  But at the same time demand gets suppressed because of the higher cost.  It's called demand destruction.  If oil were to cost $1,000 per barrel then yes there would be a huge scramble from everyone under the sun to find ways to squeeze every last drop of oil out of whatever source they can find.  The problem is that we have virtually no uses for oil that expensive.  It's too valuable to burn, too valuable to make into cheap plastic parts, too valuable to do just about anything with it.  Thus the price will drop back down to reflect actual demand, making those unconventional sources too expensive again to tap. 

Diamonds are more valuable than coal only because they're rarer, not because they're more useful. If coal or oil or some other fossil fuel became as rare as diamonds, we might be putting cans of oil or lumps of coal under lock and key in our best museums.

 

Malthus didn't write about oil. Malthus wrote about food. Basicly, he said that human population cannot rise faster than the food supply rises. He also said that under ideal conditions of food supply, human population doubles every 25 years. The corollary is that if human population is NOT doubling every 25 years, then humans are not living under ideal conditions.

 

Hubbert wrote about oil. Hubbert theorized that the plot of global oil consumption would look like a bell-shaped curve, with the peak around the year 2000. The duration of the oil age would be remarkably short. "A child born in the year 1970 will see 80% of the world's oil consumed within his lifetime." Although Hubbert advocated a new kind of money system based on energy, he didn't predict a catastrophe. He DID explain that the recession and lack of growth of the 1970's in the United States was due to depletion of energy resources and not by something that was "wrong" with the economy that politicians could do anything about. 

 

What has come to be known as Malthusian economics has been taken up by Paul Ehrlich and his ilk.

 

Ehrlich wrote "The population Bomb," which (inaccurately) predicted the end of the world in an overpopulation catastrophe. It's a shame that Ehrlich is associated with Mathusian economics. Malthus didn't predict the end of the world; he merely showed that population is limited by the food supply. Malthus didn't advocate population control; he said that if people didn't voluntarily control the birth rate, then nature would control population by famine, war, pestilence, and disease.

 

I think that Malthus was basicly correct, and so was Hubbert. Ehrlich, on the other hand, was an alarmist that advocated population control.

 

The United States today is underpopulated by world standards. We really don't know what it's like to face starvation. Neither do we know what it's like to see the growth rates of the 1790's. In those days, population in the United States really was doubling every 25 years.

 

Malthus didn't write about oil. Malthus wrote about food. Basicly, he said that human population cannot rise faster than the food supply rises. He also said that under ideal conditions of food supply, human population doubles every 25 years. The corollary is that if human population is NOT doubling every 25 years, then humans are not living under ideal conditions.

 

Hubbert wrote about oil. Hubbert theorized that the plot of global oil consumption would look like a bell-shaped curve, with the peak around the year 2000. The duration of the oil age would be remarkably short. "A child born in the year 1970 will see 80% of the world's oil consumed within his lifetime." Although Hubbert advocated a new kind of money system based on energy, he didn't predict a catastrophe. He DID explain that the recession and lack of growth of the 1970's in the United States was due to depletion of energy resources and not by something that was "wrong" with the economy that politicians could do anything about. 

 

What has come to be known as Malthusian economics has been taken up by Paul Ehrlich and his ilk.

 

Ehrlich wrote "The population Bomb," which (inaccurately) predicted the end of the world in an overpopulation catastrophe. It's a shame that Ehrlich is associated with Mathusian economics. Malthus didn't predict the end of the world; he merely showed that population is limited by the food supply. Malthus didn't advocate population control; he said that if people didn't voluntarily control the birth rate, then nature would control population by famine, war, pestilence, and disease.

 

I think that Malthus was basicly correct, and so was Hubbert. Ehrlich, on the other hand, was an alarmist that advocated population control.

 

The United States today is underpopulated by world standards. We really don't know what it's like to face starvation. Neither do we know what it's like to see the growth rates of the 1790's. In those days, population in the United States really was doubling every 25 years.

 

What Malthus did not note (considering when he wrote, it's at best debatable whether or not he should have) is that humans might find other reasons for limiting their population other than food supply.  When this happens, there can actually be an oversupply of food, particularly locally.  At that point, either the food infrastructure contracts, is stabilized by outside influences, or supplies other markets.  All three happen today.  The last, both through export markets and ethanol production.  Indeed, pretty much all global starvation today is a function of infrastructure or politics, particularly the latter.

 

Ehrlich wanted to control population.  Other alarmists want to control growth.  The key word here is "control".  There have been very many examples of advocates selling The Next Big Crisis in order to justify the transfer of economic authority from producers to planners.  Too many, in fact, to not be grossly skeptical when we hear it all again.

Why do you assume that's the case?  As resources become more scarce it does become more economically viable to tap less conventional sources of them, that's true.  But at the same time demand gets suppressed because of the higher cost.  It's called demand destruction.  If oil were to cost $1,000 per barrel then yes there would be a huge scramble from everyone under the sun to find ways to squeeze every last drop of oil out of whatever source they can find.  The problem is that we have virtually no uses for oil that expensive.  It's too valuable to burn, too valuable to make into cheap plastic parts, too valuable to do just about anything with it.  Thus the price will drop back down to reflect actual demand, making those unconventional sources too expensive again to tap. 

 

Agreed, but my post was even after taking all that into account.  After all, that reality (substitution from those who have viable means to abandon oil, with corresponding loss of demand for oil) is reflected in the price of oil today, and at any given point in time.  That dynamic will not change, though of course where we are as a society on that curve will change as they years go by.

 

I should note that my post above was deliberately intended to be broader than just oil, which is why I used "energy" and "resources," not just oil, even though I know this is the peak oil thread, so to the extent that that veered a little off topic, I needed to make that clear.  We will continue to need increasing amounts of energy as a society, and even moreso as a globe, and energy-efficiency technologies can easily increase the demand for energy by making various uses of energy more attractive from a cost-benefit standpoint.  The fact that we will continue to need more energy does not in any way, shape, or form imply that we will need to get the same proportion of our energy from oil in 2050 that we do today.  In fact, I would strongly bet that that is an economic impossibility, so to that extent, I agree with Hubbert.

 

Diamonds are more valuable than coal only because they're rarer, not because they're more useful. If coal or oil or some other fossil fuel became as rare as diamonds, we might be putting cans of oil or lumps of coal under lock and key in our best museums.

 

There are plenty of things that are both rare and useless (artistically or functionally).

 

Malthus didn't write about oil. Malthus wrote about food. Basicly, he said that human population cannot rise faster than the food supply rises. He also said that under ideal conditions of food supply, human population doubles every 25 years. The corollary is that if human population is NOT doubling every 25 years, then humans are not living under ideal conditions ...

 

I think that Malthus was basicly correct ...

 

The United States today is underpopulated by world standards. We really don't know what it's like to face starvation. Neither do we know what it's like to see the growth rates of the 1790's. In those days, population in the United States really was doubling every 25 years.

 

How can you think Malthus was basically correct, even with this more limited interpretation of his theory, and still acknowledge this change in the population growth dynamic?  Do you really think that humans were living under more "ideal conditions" in 1790 than they are today?  The necessary underlying assumption of Malthus' theory, as you've explained it, is that the dominant upward force on the population growth rate is the food supply, balanced by the downward forces of all the various destructive balancing forces that are associated with his reputation as the godfather of doomsday-by-scarcity theories.

 

Yet in America today, we suffer from far, far less war, famine, pestilence, and disease than even the healthiest regions of the country in 1790.  The most successful armed attack on the U.S. in the last generation killed 3,000 people (about 0.001% of the population).  Famine is essentially nonexistent in America and the largest nutritional threat faced by our lower classes is obesity (along with diabetes, closely-related).  Pestilence and disease still exist, of course, but even the AIDS virus has largely been contained (at least to the point that it no longer dominates public health discussions), and that was nowhere near as threatening as some of the crap that 19th-century Europe would have faced.  Average life expectancy has basically doubled.  Yet the population growth rate has declined.  How could Malthus explain that?

I’ve heard it said that Dr. Malthus was a lot like Dr. Pavlov, who had very little patience with people who misapplied his theories.  His basic principles ignored the fact that humans are the species most capable of what could be called “external evolution”:  adapting our surroundings to suit ourselves rather than vice versa.  Of course,  our ability to do this has increased dramatically since he wrote.  Indeed, Malthus’s teachings, all of which were true in context, also present an argument for maintaining and expanding this ability.

 

Ehrlich is a better example of the modern Disaster Lobby.  He was originally an entomologist.  In one sense, he’s simply a classic example of the premise that a specialist’s view of the general applicability of their theories is directly proportional to the narrowness of their specialty.  In another, he’s advocating for imposing extra control on people that they don’t really need, in anticipation of disasters that don’t really apply because they have independence of action.  He can be seen as providing cover for those who want that control for its own sake.

 

Do you really think that humans were living under more "ideal conditions" in 1790 than they are today?

 

Malthus proposed that the definition of happiness is getting married young and having a large family. Indeed, pioneer families often had 10 children or more. There were definitely a higher percentage of families with 10 or more children in 1790 then there are today.

Do you really think that humans were living under more "ideal conditions" in 1790 than they are today?

 

Malthus proposed that the definition of happiness is getting married young and having a large family. Indeed, pioneer families often had 10 children or more. There were definitely a higher percentage of families with 10 or more children in 1790 then there are today.

 

You can only compare your living conditions to what came before. I love it when young people ask an old person how they were able to do various things without today's technology or quality of life, just as young people 50-70 years from now will ask today's young people how they were able to cope with the primitive technology and qualities of life we must "suffer" today.

 

In the 1790s, crossing the oceans had become routine, populations no longer had to suffer under one economy or political system and could instead relocate to another country, once-luxury items like coffee and sugar were readily available, literacy among the commonfolk was expanding greatly, human rights were growing, and more. Ironically, I am researching the period in the mid-1700s for a possible book and I am both pleasantly surprised at how civilized the European system of governments were (including their applications here in the Americas) yet appalled at occasional incidences of "the old ways" reintroducing themselves into an era of great upheaval and how frequently military actions were occurring during these years.

I have read some futurists arguing that by the end of the 2020s, technological advances will allow energy to be practically abundant (from "renewable" sources) and you will no longer see oil companies listed among the largest companies in the world.

"Futurists" have been arguing that unlimited clean energy is just around the corner for as long as we've realized that the energy we have is neither.  If the solution is just around the corner, and with no sacrifice required, then why do the things we should now?

"Futurists" have been arguing that unlimited clean energy is just around the corner for as long as we've realized that the energy we have is neither.  If the solution is just around the corner, and with no sacrifice required, then why do the things we should now?

 

Depends on what you think we "should" be doing.

"Futurists" have been arguing that unlimited clean energy is just around the corner for as long as we've realized that the energy we have is neither.  If the solution is just around the corner, and with no sacrifice required, then why do the things we should now?

 

Depends on what you think we "should" be doing.

 

In many cases, it's because some see it as an excuse to tell others how they should live their lives.  Hundreds of years ago (and still, in some places) the reason was "because God said so".  Today, a pseudoscientific veneer is needed.

 

The big breakthrough will be in terms of energy storage.  Something like Heinlein's "Shipstones" will transform our society more than any energy generation breakthrough short of fusion.

Right, conservationists are the ones being pseudoscientific. :roll: 

 

"Don't worry kids, burn all the finite resources that we need to maintain modern civilization as fast as you can, because when that runs out the free market will make up an even better new energy source!"  Seems pretty faith based to me.

Right, conservationists are the ones being pseudoscientific. :roll: 

 

"Don't worry kids, burn all the finite resources that we need to maintain modern civilization as fast as you can, because when that runs out the free market will make up an even better new energy source!"  Seems pretty faith based to me.

 

More like history based.

 

Also science based as we know what the potential sources are, and what technical challenges need to be met to make them usable.

^ And we know that we have no hope of overcoming those challenges to "keep running things the way we're running them now."  If we could then we'd be doing that already, except for the technological AND financial AND environmental AND social barriers that are preventing it.

Right, conservationists are the ones being pseudoscientific. :roll: 

 

You forgot myopic, misanthropic, historically illiterate, and power-hungry.

 

"Don't worry kids, burn all the finite resources that we need to maintain modern civilization as fast as you can, because when that runs out the free market will make up an even better new energy source!"  Seems pretty faith based to me.

 

First, hyperbole aside, has it ever not happened?  And have you ever read any of the links I've routinely posted in these threads regarding breakthroughs in efficient energy generation and storage?

 

Here's a few more just from the past few months:

 

On the generation front, North Carolina State researchers just released a new technique for improving connections between stacked solar cells, allowing them to concentrate much more sunlight for any unit of surface area, with less energy loss at the interconnection points in the stack:  http://www.kurzweilai.net/new-junction-between-stacked-solar-cells-can-handle-max-energy-of-70000-suns

 

On the storage front, MIT just released a rechargeable flow battery that could have significant practical implications for power storage: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/rechargeable-flow-battery-enables-cheaper-large-scale-energy-storage-0816.html

 

Even if neither of those pan out, those are just samples.  There is research going on all around the country on these issues.  It's not as if the scientific community is completely unaware of these hurdles.  Quite the contrary.  And I'm also well aware of the fact that these efforts are not fully private and that much of this research is partially public funded.  I have no principled objections to tax dollars being used for such purposes.  And, of course, some of this research is privately funded as well, which is even better.

 

Second, I'm pretty sure that both E Rocc and I have both noted that the free market will encourage conservation by raising the price of all products, including energy, that are intrinsically dependent on resources that are becoming rarer.  You already see that today with the naturally declining sales of SUVs.  Many dealers, including large ones, don't even stock the largest SUVs their OEMs produce anymore; anyone who seriously wants one will have to special order it in some cases.  (Montrose Ford doesn't stock the Expedition, for example.)

First, hyperbole aside, has it ever not happened?  And have you ever read any of the links I've routinely posted in these threads regarding breakthroughs in efficient energy generation and storage?

 

 

Ask the Rapa Nui who populated the once food-prolific Easter Island.....

 

Indeed, a number of civilizations have collapsed because of resource depletion- some small and isolated, like KJP's example, some as large and sophisticated as any at their time, like the Mayans.

 

Gramarye, I've been reading those articles since I was a child.  Once I have my desktop fusion reactor I'll say their is no need to conserve energy.

And I've been reading articles about how the scarcity-based collapse of the Western world has been right around the corner for just as long.

^Sure, but since we don't know who will ultimately be right, it might make sense to work on both conserving the energy resources we currently know how to exploit, and accelerating development of technologies to exploit new, hopefully clean, affordable and limitless energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager

And I've been reading articles about how the scarcity-based collapse of the Western world has been right around the corner for just as long.

 

Is this going to happen here? I don't know. But I'm surprised you're taking such a hard denial that this has happened before, or if it has it could never happen again. A certainty of doom is just as silly as a certainty of some as-yet unidentified savior. What is the most responsible act?

And I've been reading articles about how the scarcity-based collapse of the Western world has been right around the corner for just as long.

 

Is this going to happen here? I don't know. But I'm surprised you're taking such a hard denial that this has happened before, or if it has it could never happen again. A certainty of doom is just as silly as a certainty of some as-yet unidentified savior. What is the most responsible act?

 

The issue I have is how these "imminent crises" always seem to have the same "solution": a transfer of resources and authority from the private sector to the public (sector).  That makes some of us suspicious that the latter is indeed the objective of all this.

 

In any case, several potential "saviors" have long since been identified.

The issue I have is how these "imminent crises" always seem to have the same "solution": a transfer of resources and authority from the private sector to the public (sector).  That makes some of us suspicious that the latter is indeed the objective of all this.

 

In any case, several potential "saviors" have long since been identified.

 

I firmly believe the private sector is eminently capable of providing the equipment, tools, infrastructure and servicing necessary for renewable energy sources -- IF there was a level playing field. What bothers me is that we have to give subsidies to induce renewables while we bless the petroleum industry with many billions of subsidies of their own. To me these subsidies are working at cross purposes. Want renewables? Don't give them subsidies. Instead, take them away from the petroleum industry. Unfortunately our chosen system of government does not allow this to happen.

The problem with most of the “renewables” is they don’t mesh well with demand, often for reasons relating to geography or physics.  Once the energy storage problem is solved, you will see a lot of them become a lot more viable. 

 

The reason some of us are so skeptical about efforts to limit energy generation is pretty simple.  A people who have access to cheap and abundant energy require less external planning and control, and are indeed in a better position to resist such.  Those who feel that control is more important than general prosperity or progress are very aware of this.

The issue I have is how these "imminent crises" always seem to have the same "solution": a transfer of resources and authority from the private sector to the public (sector).  That makes some of us suspicious that the latter is indeed the objective of all this.

 

In any case, several potential "saviors" have long since been identified.

 

I firmly believe the private sector is eminently capable of providing the equipment, tools, infrastructure and servicing necessary for renewable energy sources -- IF there was a level playing field. What bothers me is that we have to give subsidies to induce renewables while we bless the petroleum industry with many billions of subsidies of their own. To me these subsidies are working at cross purposes. Want renewables? Don't give them subsidies. Instead, take them away from the petroleum industry. Unfortunately our chosen system of government does not allow this to happen.

 

If you want to level the playing field by removing subsidies from both sides, then we have no disagreement whatsoever.  Subsidization encourages overconsumption and waste, and if the subsidies are large enough, it can prompt the formation of entire industries built around just getting the subsidy, with actual productive activity as a secondary concern.  And you are correct that renewables get some subsidies, but smaller ones than fossil fuels--and you would also be correct to say that the small subsidies for renewables are a larger political football than the massive ones for conventional sources, which makes no sense from a budgetary standpoint, either.

 

But the current environmentalist lobby, which overlaps substantially with the peak oil alarmists, want far more than that, and they've found a receptive ear in Washington during the Obama administration.  They don't want to stop subsidizing coal, oil, and gas.  They want to use the EPA to actively suppress all commerce in the sector.  Whether it's working to actively prevent any new coal-fired power plants from ever being constructed again, killing the Keystone XL pipeline, or trying to take advantage of the Deepwater Horizon spill to force an overreaction under crisis pressure that would have basically banned all offshore drilling, the current movement goes far, far beyond simply opposing subsidies.

 

I'm the last person you'll find advocating subsidizing fossil fuels.  Honestly, I think that within 20 years, petroleum products will be of more use for the production of polymers and other materials than for transportation fuel, and we can bid lines at the gas station a fond farewell as we begin charging our cars overnight in our garages.  I just don't oppose the continued use of them in the here and now.  They're going to be obsolete for transportation within a generation or two, and likely for electrical power generation as well.  Therefore, I don't see a tremendous need to set vast quantities of them aside now.